Cap reform convergence

minerleague

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I am the opposite, I work off farm.

But why should the public purse support those who have a second income?

My understanding of the CAP is its a farm income support? Isn't this whole debate about fairness and redistributing of funds?

Impossible to please everyone, but should someone with a big block of land barely stocked be allowed to say " my farm income is low I deserve more supports? . Again should someone with good off farm income ( after many years study etc ) be penalized. Dont think off farm income will be taken into account ( too complex ) and we'll end up with a flat payment per acre, some form of front loading, and more linked to greening ( lower stocking rates - higher payment ??)

Dinzee Conlee

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they are adhering to the same set of ts&cs. The debate is about making the payment element fair for observing those terms.

But by that logic, we shouldn't be discussing an upper cap for BPS. They too are abiding by the rules, even if they are getting 100k+

Dinzee Conlee

minerleague wrote: »

Impossible to please everyone, but should someone with a big block of land barely stocked be allowed to say " my farm income is low I deserve more supports? . Again should someone with good off farm income ( after many years study etc ) be penalized. Dont think off farm income will be taken into account ( too complex ) and we'll end up with a flat payment per acre, some form of front loading, and more linked to greening ( lower stocking rates - higher payment ??)

Oh, I agree Miner...

I just question the point of the SFP. I think we have some so far from its original intent. But, people dont want to think about that, they just want some of the money for themselves. Which is fair enough too I suppose...

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

But by that logic, we shouldn't be discussing an upper cap for BPS. They too are abiding by the rules, even if they are getting 100k+

Your problem there is passing that with European taxpayers. I don't think it should be above avg industrial wage here, which is lower than all orgs policies afaik.

minerleague

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Oh, I agree Miner...

I just question the point of the SFP. I think we have some so far from its original intent. But, people dont want to think about that, they just want some of the money for themselves. Which is fair enough too I suppose...

Ideally we would be getting paid properly for our produce, with tariffs on food from outside europe ( to level costs of living, and rules imposed here)and no payments. This will never happen of course but it would be more honest and open.

alps

CAP was a food production subsidy, to secure a guaranteed cheap supply of food for the people of Europe. It was never a social welfare payment.

It was required to break from direct production alignment due to new trade deals being done worldwide, but the focus remained as a food subsidy.

Dinzee Conlee

Deleted User wrote: »

Your problem there is passing that with European taxpayers. I don't think it should be above avg industrial wage here, which is lower than all orgs policies afaik.

Yeah, I would agree with that Herd... It would be a good link I think... But it still goes against the 'everyone meeting the same T&Cs'

My opinion is the BPS should be restructured to support full time farmers more. Maybe we do this by putting something similar to how the dole works (yes, the dole, the BPS was already referred to as dole earlier in the thread)

Your tax returns show you earn under X, you get a BPS of say 250/ha
Your tax returns show you earn over X, you get a BPS of say 100/ha

You still get paid to keep the land in a good condition to meet all the T&Cs - but you get a lower payment...

Anyways, I must get some lunch now...

Dinzee Conlee

alps wrote: »

CAP was a food production subsidy, to secure a guaranteed cheap supply of food for the people of Europe. It was never a social welfare payment.

It was required to break from direct production alignment due to new trade deals being done worldwide, but the focus remained as a food subsidy.

But that it what it has become...

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Yeah, I would agree with that Herd... It would be a good link I think... But it still goes against the 'everyone meeting the same T&Cs'

My opinion is the BPS should be restructured to support full time farmers more. Maybe we do this by putting something similar to how the dole works (yes, the dole, the BPS was already referred to as dole earlier in the thread)

Your tax returns show you earn under X, you get a BPS of say 250/ha
Your tax returns show you earn over X, you get a BPS of say 100/ha

You still get paid to keep the land in a good condition to meet all the T&Cs - but you get a lower payment...

Anyways, I must get some lunch now...

The ts&cs are within CAP, outside work is available to most anyone wishing to pursue it so no real disadvantage there.

The taxpayers also have "wants" which is where CAP payments come in, I would suggest not many farmers here are willing to do that work AND pay for it themselves.

Dinzee Conlee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The ts&cs are within CAP, outside work is available to most anyone wishing to pursue it so no real disadvantage there.

The taxpayers also have "wants" which is where CAP payments come in, I would suggest not many farmers here are willing to do that work AND pay for it themselves.

I don’t get your last paragraph Herd...

Do you mean lads wouldn’t stay farming if they weren’t getting higher BPS payment?
But sure isn’t that what convergence is doing for some lads? So they will have to access what to do in the post convergence world...
In my ‘made-e-up-e’ proposal, similar would have to happen...

wrangler

A neighbour that often gives me a lecture about my farming practises re the environment has a flail in cutting hedges today... go figure.
When the EU get to giving us our tasks to get our last 25% environment payment, I'd say Calender farming will be in the halpenny place compared to their demands

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I don’t get your last paragraph Herd...

Do you mean lads wouldn’t stay farming if they weren’t getting higher BPS payment?
But sure isn’t that what convergence is doing for some lads? So they will have to access what to do in the post convergence world...
In my ‘made-e-up-e’ proposal, similar would have to happen...

No, that the CAP budget is there to pay for the ts&cs. Farming, like CAP is voluntary.

_Brian

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Yeah, I would agree with that Herd... It would be a good link I think... But it still goes against the 'everyone meeting the same T&Cs'

My opinion is the BPS should be restructured to support full time farmers more. Maybe we do this by putting something similar to how the dole works (yes, the dole, the BPS was already referred to as dole earlier in the thread)

Your tax returns show you earn under X, you get a BPS of say 250/ha
Your tax returns show you earn over X, you get a BPS of say 100/ha

You still get paid to keep the land in a good condition to meet all the T&Cs - but you get a lower payment...

Anyways, I must get some lunch now...

Or
It could go 100% to the part time lads to keep them producing since it’s a method of cheap food supply, the full time lads are always saying they are the viable farmers, so the payment should go elsewhere.

Truth is it should be going to biodiversity measures with measured outcomes. Everyone gets to partake or they can stay out if they don’t like the idea.

Dinzee Conlee

_Brian wrote: »

Or
It could go 100% to the part time lads to keep them producing since it’s a method of cheap food supply, the full time lads are always saying they are the viable farmers, so the payment should go elsewhere.

Truth is it should be going to biodiversity measures with measured outcomes. Everyone gets to partake or they can stay out if they don’t like the idea.

Yeah, that's another argument, as valid as my own

I disagree with it Brian, as I think if a lad wanted to go full time farming, and put it all on the line, he should be supported.
As for the cheap food supply, I don't think that's a good thing. But if they really wanted a cheap food supply, they need not pay it to the part-time lads. As chances are, half of them will keep producing anyways, regardless of SFP...

But, I do agree with your sentence in bold above - I think biodiversity is the key.
It would probably go more towards the lesser intensive lads, who maybe are in more need of it?
It might take more food (beef/lamb) out of the system, which might improve markets?

Birdnuts

_Brian wrote: »

Or
It could go 100% to the part time lads to keep them producing since it’s a method of cheap food supply, the full time lads are always saying they are the viable farmers, so the payment should go elsewhere.

Truth is it should be going to biodiversity measures with measured outcomes. Everyone gets to partake or they can stay out if they don’t like the idea.

It appears those who support the current CAP model appear to be unaware of the fact that for the last 30 years it has been moving away from subsidising beef mountains and milk lakes which really only benefit the Larry G's of this world at the expense of everyone else(including the vast majority of farmers and the environment). This process is likely to excelerate over the coming years so the appraoch of the likes of the IFA is really head in sand stuff that will do nothing for the majority farmers or their public image for that matter.

wrangler

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I don’t get your last paragraph Herd...

Do you mean lads wouldn’t stay farming if they weren’t getting higher BPS payment?
But sure isn’t that what convergence is doing for some lads? So they will have to access what to do in the post convergence world...
In my ‘made-e-up-e’ proposal, similar would have to happen...

My income was always probably 60% subsidy and 40% from the enterprise, I doubt I'd stay at it but for the SFP.
No point in being a fool either.

Just edited to sy that enterprises go better if they're not under pressure.
When I was in financial difficulty in the 1980s, a lot went wrong because of pushing the system iykwim

Would the ifa not be better served to act in interests of the majority of farmers,whom would be smaller?



Hard to see a future for em in appearing on tv,whinging that small/lower earners might get more

Have they held a national vote on their stance,or has the leadership decided to shaft smaller farmers

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

Would the ifa not be better served to act in interests of the majority of farmers,whom would be smaller?



Hard to see a future for em in appearing on tv,whinging that small/lower earners might get more

Have they held a national vote on their stance,or has the leadership decided to shaft smaller farmers

It's well explained in this weeks IFJ and I've said it here often enough.
There's representatives from every county elected on to commitees and they decide policy.
The IFA have decided to ignore last weeks protest by Deane and Mc Carthy for the very same reason which is explained on IFJ .

It's rule 56 and 86 of the constitution

https://www.ifa.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IFA-Rules-Constitution-2019.pdf

The amusing thing is that small farmers way outnumber big farmers and could have directed policy away from big farmers in IFA if they bothered.
IFA have about €10m in funds, when thats gone, IFA will be gone so it's unlikely to be there for the next CAP reform

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

It's well explained in this weeks IFJ and I've said it here often enough.
There's representatives from every county elected on to commitees and they decide policy.
The IFA have decided to ignore last weeks protest by Deane and Mc Carthy for the very same reason which is explained on IFJ .

It's rule 56 and 86 of the constitution

https://www.ifa.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IFA-Rules-Constitution-2019.pdf

The amusing thing is that small farmers way outnumber big farmers and could have directed policy away from big farmers in IFA if they bothered.
IFA have about €10m in funds, when thats gone, IFA will be gone so it's unlikely to be there for the next CAP reform

so have they,or have they not,held a vote on their stance on this issue??




Going on the news,complaining small/lower income farmers would get more money is an astonishingly poor attempt at PR and reminds me of the bankers on the news,complaining they didnt get bonus's after the banks went backrupt and were bailed out in 08/09........completly and utterly out of touch with reality,if this is future and what is leadership standred within the IFA,maybe its time they fold up the tent

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

so have they,or have they not,held a vote on their stance on this issue??




Going on the news,complaining small/lower income farmers would get more money is an astonishingly poor attempt at PR and reminds me of the bankers on the news,complaining they didnt get bonus's after the banks went backrupt and were bailed out in 08/09........completly and utterly out of touch with reality,if this is future and what is leadership standred within the IFA,maybe its time they fold up the tent

They're unlikely to fold up with the number of members they have until they go broke, It'll be run according to the rules of the constitution and nothing will change that. It's not a hockey club, lazy farmers leaving the work to others has led to this scenario. The same attitude that destroys every club in the country is what's after happening here. I said exactly this in 2013 . Elected farmers go to Dublin, make decisions at meetings. If farmers are stupid enough to elect people that don't represent them what can you expect. I can assure you I never wanted to do it but there was no one else,
As you can see I won't accept abuse for doing what others were too lazy to do.

epfff

wrangler wrote: »

They're unlikely to fold up with the number of members they have until they go broke, It'll be run according to the rules of the constitution and nothing will change that. It's not a hockey club, lazy farmers leaving the work to others has led to this scenario. The same attitude that destroys every club in the country is what's after happening here. I said exactly this in 2013 . Elected farmers go to Dublin, make decisions at meetings. If farmers are stupid enough to elect people that don't represent them what can you expect. I can assure you I never wanted to do it but there was no one else,
As you can see I won't accept abuse for doing what others were too lazy to do.

I am a part timer and very average farmer in methods acreage sfp and the rest. I am shop steward for my union in my workplace so would be pro strength in numbers.
I was a member of ifa for 20 odd years and was pretty active defending often the indefensible putting hours of my employers time researching laws and solutions for most of it.
In my area I only know of 3 farmers under 60 (none ifa members) that are not part time.
I became less active after been verbally attacked at a meeting by a group of 70+ year olds because I was part time and my name was put forward without my concent for a position that I did not want.
I drifted away a little disappointed after discovering the pay and conditions some low ranking employees were receiving and then the election of a president that thought he was the rose of tralee with more concern about what party he would join after his term than any farming issue finished me.

I had hoped Tim would turn it around and I would rejoin. But not it looks like the paid officials have the control and his hands are tied.

I had sales rep offering me deals that would give me a modest return on paying membership last week he never once mentioned any farm benefits or tried to sell any of the good work the organisation does/did. This probably pushed me further away.

I don't understand why there is no apatite within the organisation to survive move with times attract new members become great again.
The present crop seems to be happy for it to grow old and die with them.
I am not going to stop them doing this but I often think if I gave them a hand to speed it up could I be helping the average farmer.

epfff

wrangler wrote: »

They're unlikely to fold up with the number of members they have until they go broke,

Does any have a recent figure for membership?

I do know around here any farmer that is a member was encouraged to include another family member. In 2018 locally there was about 56 members but that was representing about 30 farms.
I guess that is down to about 30 now with less than 15 farms represented. Death would have been as hard on membership as defectors.

wrangler

epfff wrote: »

I am a part timer and very average farmer in methods acreage sfp and the rest. I am shop steward for my union in my workplace so would be pro strength in numbers.
I was a member of ifa for 20 odd years and was pretty active defending often the indefensible putting hours of my employers time researching laws and solutions for most of it.
In my area I only know of 3 farmers under 60 (none ifa members) that are not part time.
I became less active after been verbally attacked at a meeting by a group of 70+ year olds because I was part time and my name was put forward without my concent for a position that I did not want.
I drifted away a little disappointed after discovering the pay and conditions some low ranking employees were receiving and then the election of a president that thought he was the rose of tralee with more concern about what party he would join after his term than any farming issue finished me.

I had hoped Tim would turn it around and I would rejoin. But not it looks like the paid officials have the control and his hands are tied.

I had sales rep offering me deals that would give me a modest return on paying membership last week he never once mentioned any farm benefits or tried to sell any of the good work the organisation does/did. This probably pushed me further away.

I don't understand why there is no apatite within the organisation to survive move with times attract new members become great again.
The present crop seems to be happy for it to grow old and die with them.
I am not going to stop them doing this but I often think if I gave them a hand to speed it up could I be helping the average farmer.

The president is just a figure head, The commitees decides the policy not the paid employees . It's a bit sad thet I have to tell you that again and again
Referring to farmers at meetings, you needn't tell me what they're like. Why do you think I walked away
I think the carry on of Beef Plan should tell you how difficult farmers are,
There is no other way only by the book, if farmers aren't happy with that then so be it. Let them go to Beef plan and see how they get on.
I always said that if it dies we'll go back to our farms, I certainly wouldn't be bothered selling membershp, if farmers don't want to help them selves, I certainly won't push them.

Bass Reeves

So after all the huffing and puffing, propaganda by vested interest media that the sky would fall in we ended up with
85% convergence
10% for front loading
100k max payment( subject to 50 salary of employees added) can be tiered to 60k
25%for greening averaged over the CAP

Just for the record
Next CAP

100k reduced to 60k or even 40-50k no salary allowance
100% convergence
Greening 40%


Just do the changes are not unexpected

Dinzee Conlee

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So after all the huffing and puffing, propaganda by vested interest media that the sky would fall in we ended up with
85% convergence
10% for front loading
100k max payment( subject to 50 salary of employees added) can be tiered to 60k
25%for greening averaged over the CAP

Just for the record
Next CAP

100k reduced to 60k or even 40-50k no salary allowance
100% convergence
Greening 40%


Just do the changes are not unexpected

So is possible to calculate what the 85% convergence and 10% front loading would mean in terms of payment/ha?

Or do we still not have enough detail to work that out?

wrangler

epfff wrote: »

Does any have a recent figure for membership?

I do know around here any farmer that is a member was encouraged to include another family member. In 2018 locally there was about 56 members but that was representing about 30 farms.
I guess that is down to about 30 now with less than 15 farms represented. Death would have been as hard on membership as defectors.

71000 members last year

morphy87

wrangler wrote: »

The president is just a figure head, The commitees decides the policy not the paid employees . It's a bit sad thet I have to tell you that again and again
Referring to farmers at meetings, you needn't tell me what they're like. Why do you think I walked away
I think the carry on of Beef Plan should tell you how difficult farmers are,
There is no other way only by the book, if farmers aren't happy with that then so be it. Let them go to Beef plan and see how they get on.
I always said that if it dies we'll go back to our farms, I certainly wouldn't be bothered selling membershp, if farmers don't want to help them selves, I certainly won't push them.

It’s.not just the IFA that’s struggling to get new members or keep their numbers up, I see back our way all parishes had a couple of cummains, mostly Finna fail and Fine Gael, these two are only barely surviving, no new members joining and older people dieing off

One thing for sure farmers need some one to represent them

wrangler

morphy87 wrote: »

It’s.not just the IFA that’s struggling to get new members or keep their numbers up, I see back our way all parishes had a couple of cummains, mostly Finna fail and Fine Gael, these two are only barely surviving, no new members joining and older people dieing off

One thing for sure farmers need some one to represent them

Too mean to pay for it though or work for other farmers.

morphy87

wrangler wrote: »

Too mean to pay for it though or work for other farmers.

So how could you rejuvenate it and get people back, I see with the beam scheme, I know it was awkward to calculate and had it’s problems but the IFA still got 100 million I think for farmers

wrangler

morphy87 wrote: »

So how could you rejuvenate it and get people back, I see with the beam scheme, I know it was awkward to calculate and had it’s problems but the IFA still got 100 million I think for farmers

They must have 200m got in the last eighteen mths.
Same with the EIF LEVY, it's to pay for the office in Brussels which would've been instrumental in getting all that money
Yet you hear the whinge and a night out would cost you more than most farmers pay ..... even in membership
sad lot
a friend who's a silage contractor tells me he has 20000 outstanding since 2020.
Mean, mean